Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

I just watched Emma Thomson on the BBC about Weinstein. She is saying effectively if only more or all the people in power in Hollywood were women this abuse would never happen.

I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.

To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.

So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.

Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I just watched Emma Thomson on the BBC about Weinstein. She is saying effectively if only more or all the people in power in Hollywood were women this abuse would never happen.

I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.

To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.

So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.

Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
Click to expand...
Without denying that women in positions of power can be absolute assholes too: I expect the main points here rather to be a) changing the social climate in Hollywood by dissolving a deeply encrusted tradition of alpha-male dominance, and b) differences in male/female socialisation when it comes to sexual aggression.

Don't really have a formed opinion on this, but I'm sure it's not as stupid as you assume.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
Without denying that women in position of power can be absolute assholes too: I expect the main points here rather to be a) changing the social climate in Hollywood by dissolving a deeply encrusted tradition of alpha-male dominance, and b) differences in male/female socialisation when it comes to sexual aggression.

Don't really have a formed opinion on this, but I'm sure it's not as stupid as you assume.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're completely right. Sure not all sexual assault would stop if more women were in charge but there would definitely be less of an all boys club feel that often occurs when they people at power watch each others back. You would probably see more victims come out earlier and not be as afraid.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If people like her are “the ruination of the left” how come the vile shite spewed on twitter by people from the other end of the political spectrum aren’t “ruination of the right”?

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion (as per @adexkola ’s comment above) that spending too much time on twitter gives you a VERY distorted opinion on what most people are actually like, at both ends of the political spectrum. It’s the extreme, absurd opinions that get the most traction because they create the most fuss. But they’re all just fringe idiots and should really be ignored.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the right. I only care about the left and, from what I can see, the complete obliteration of it from over-zealous censorship and fighting every single battle every single time. Having a hard-line stance on every single issue is detrimental to the movement. There's no room for manoeuvre. Some 'liberals' are more akin to fascists than progressives. I find this exasperating but every time I mention it, I'm berated for being a closet 'right-winger', which does nothing but solidify my position, quite frankly.

As for your point about Twitter, you're absolutely correct. Selective content/opinions, blocking those whom you disagree with etc. is a sure-fire way of building an untrusting and intolerant society. It's healthy to disagree and have differing opinions. It's healthy to listen to contrasting opinions. Social media, particularly Twitter, prevents that. I binned Twitter and Facebook months ago and it's made me happier as a result.
 
MadMike said:
Yeah, I'll also have to pull you up on that. If the racist, nazi sympathising cnuts on the extreme end of the right spectrum are not ruining the right, then I don't see how these idiots would ruin the left.
Click to expand...

Who said they're not ruining the right? There's certainly an argument to be made that they evidently are.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
The amount of protection you receive is directly proportionate to the amount of money people can make off of you.
Click to expand...
Inversely surely? If I can make a lot ofmoney off someone by suing them they have less protection.
 
ADJUDICATOR said:
Inversely surely? If I can make a lot ofmoney off someone by suing them they have less protection.
Click to expand...
What I meant was if you're good at your job/very famous there will always be someone willing to forgive your crime, no matter how heinous, since you can make them money.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Not blaming you Mike but we need to stop posting tweets from random obscure deluded idiots. Only gets people like @Buchan worked for no reason.
Click to expand...

Well someone mentioned Jason Momoa had been pulled into the storm and when I googled to see why, that tweet referencing that interview was the source. Even the Guardian was reporting on it. Google it and see.

So I was sat there thinking how someone got pulled into a sexual abuse and harassment scandal because of bad joke they made.
 
MadMike said:
Well someone mentioned Jason Momoa had been pulled into the storm and when I googled to see why, that tweet referencing that interview was the source. Even the Guardian was reporting on it. Google it and see.

So I was sat there thinking how someone got pulled into a sexual abuse and harassment scandal because of bad joke they made.
Click to expand...

I don't see the tweet being referenced the Guardian? Posting the Guardian article makes sense but just some random weirdo only gets people riled up. In any case I'm not blaming you and we certainly shouldn't be advocating policing what tweets to post. It's just another fringe element getting more of a voice when in reality everyone will forget Jason Mamoa's bad joke in a couple of days.
 
I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy whatsoever, but removing him from credits isn't really right, no?
I guess they're doing it so people don't boycott the films though.
 
VeevaVee said:
I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy whatsoever, but removing him from credits isn't really right, no?
I guess they're doing it so people don't boycott the films though.
Click to expand...

Yea it does seem a bit much. You can't just rewrite history and take away what he has done/achieved.

Seems like it part of the culture these days when a scandal breaks out, everyone wants to go to the next level.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Yeah you're completely right. Sure not all sexual assault would stop if more women were in charge but there would definitely be less of an all boys club feel that often occurs when they people at power watch each others back. You would probably see more victims come out earlier and not be as afraid.
Click to expand...

There was a certain woman in power who oversaw the Yewtree era of Heath, Saville etc
 
Synco said:
Without denying that women in positions of power can be absolute assholes too: I expect the main points here rather to be a) changing the social climate in Hollywood by dissolving a deeply encrusted tradition of alpha-male dominance, and b) differences in male/female socialisation when it comes to sexual aggression.

Don't really have a formed opinion on this, but I'm sure it's not as stupid as you assume.
Click to expand...

I think you're on the right path.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I just watched Emma Thomson on the BBC about Weinstein. She is saying effectively if only more or all the people in power in Hollywood were women this abuse would never happen.

I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.

To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.

So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.

Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
Click to expand...
It is a bit sexist, but is it really that controversial? I think she's probably right.
 
This whole thing has turned into a witch (or wizard) hunt and all these women coming out now saying "I new about this years ago but said nothing" just seems like bullshit.

Emma Thompson was at too, "I knew last year", well if you know fecking say something, you haven't worked in years so you've nothing to lose.

Also, look at the man's wife, she's hot, she's probably only with him for the power/money he has, because he's not exactly a looker, look at Trump's wife.
 
Sassy Colin said:
This whole thing has turned into a witch (or wizard) hunt and all these women coming out now saying "I new about this years ago but said nothing" just seems like bullshit.

Emma Thompson was at too, "I knew last year", well if you know fecking say something, you haven't worked in years so you've nothing to lose.
Click to expand...
The feck you gonna do just knowing? There's plenty of people in the public eye that many of us suspect/know are wrong uns, but what are you really going to do? Libel them and get sued into oblivion?
 
Silva said:
The feck you gonna do just knowing? There's plenty of people in the public eye that many of us suspect/know are wrong uns, but what are you really going to do? Libel them and get sued into oblivion?
Click to expand...

How can he be libelled when he actually committed the acts?

All these people come out saying, he did the same to me, years ago.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I just watched Emma Thomson on the BBC about Weinstein. She is saying effectively if only more or all the people in power in Hollywood were women this abuse would never happen.

I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.

To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.

So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.

Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's rubbish. I've been on the receiving end of exactly the kind of stuff Weinstein is being accused of from women. It's all about unchecked power. Of course Emma Thompson would be getting on a high horse though, and unsurprisingly with her it's the wrong one.
 
Hang on a sec @Sassy Colin - Emma Thompson on that Newsnight thing specifically said she didnt know anything about any of this sexual stuff but it didnt surprise her and it was endemic in the system. She didnt say she knew last year - not in that interview anyway. If she said something completely different somewhere else then that in itself is odd.
 
Sassy Colin said:
How can he be libelled when he actually committed the acts?

All these people come out saying, he did the same to me, years ago.
Click to expand...
Just because something is true doesn't mean you're not committing libel. If you'd tweeted the details being published now about a year ago and his lawyers had sued you, you would have lost the case and been fined. And subsequent evidence that your statement is true wouldn't get your money back.

And this is how many sexual predators get caught. The women who go to the police soon after an assault usually either get sent out of the department with nothing to show for it, or if it goes further wind up in a fight with lawyers they can't afford to fight. It's usually years later, after someone makes a list of multiple women that shows a clear pattern that these guys get caught. That's if the victims are lucky and their assaulter gets caught - the vast majority aren't so lucky.
 
Adebesi said:
Hang on a sec @Sassy Colin - Emma Thompson on that Newsnight thing specifically said she didnt know anything about any of this sexual stuff but it didnt surprise her and it was endemic in the system. She didnt say she knew last year - not in that interview anyway. If she said something completely different somewhere else then that in itself is odd.
Click to expand...

And yet she says nothing about it, if she knows something, she should say it.
 
Sassy Colin said:
And yet she says nothing about it, if she knows something, she should say it.
Click to expand...
She just did. She said that abuse, including sexual abuse, is rife in Hollywood. Even if she wanted to say something more specific the lawyers on newsnight and every other newspaper/news outlet would very quickly stop it from broadcasting because of libel laws.

It shouldn't be up to individuals like Emma Thompson to stop sexual predators, it's up to the police to, you know, police.
 
Sassy Colin said:
And yet she says nothing about it, if she knows something, she should say it.
Click to expand...
You put "I knew last year" in quotation marks, but she didnt actually say or even imply that. That was all I was alluding to. Now youre making a different point which I dont feel the need to answer because its been made and countered and made and countered hundreds of times already.
 
Sassy Colin said:
This whole thing has turned into a witch (or wizard) hunt and all these women coming out now saying "I new about this years ago but said nothing" just seems like bullshit.

Emma Thompson was at too, "I knew last year", well if you know fecking say something, you haven't worked in years so you've nothing to lose.

Also, look at the man's wife, she's hot, she's probably only with him for the power/money he has, because he's not exactly a looker, look at Trump's wife.
Click to expand...

What has his wife's looks got to do with any of this?
 
Silva said:
She just did. She said that abuse, including sexual abuse, is rife in Hollywood. Even if she wanted to say something more specific the lawyers on newsnight and every other newspaper/news outlet would very quickly stop it from broadcasting because of libel laws.

It shouldn't be up to individuals like Emma Thompson to stop sexual predators, it's up to the police to, you know, police.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but someone needs to report them first eh? They don't just randomly investigate people without reason. And also the legal system has to hold up it's end. And that includes the plaintiffs.

How many times did Weinstein get taken to court only to settle outside of it? 6-7 was it? Which means one of two things:
a) Plaintiffs felt it was a case they wouldn't win or it would drag too long and thus opted to settle for damages. Or...
b) They were happy to take a huge payment and keep quiet thus allowing this predator to continue his nasty work.

I'm guessing here, but most cases must be falling under a). No one wants to be involved in lengthy litigation battle especially against someone with a lot more wealth and influence. Which is a problem of the legal system and a reason why people in Weinstein's position feel they are above the law. The b) category is just sad.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
She just did. She said that abuse, including sexual abuse, is rife in Hollywood. Even if she wanted to say something more specific the lawyers on newsnight and every other newspaper/news outlet would very quickly stop it from broadcasting because of libel laws.

It shouldn't be up to individuals like Emma Thompson to stop sexual predators, it's up to the police to, you know, police.
Click to expand...

How, without an allegation in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.